Bombay High Court
WP/638/2003 of SHRI BHARAT TANDEL, PANAJI-GOA. Vs STATE OF GOA AND 6 ORS., on 17 December 2003
COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 638 OF 2003 SHRI BHARAT TANDEL, PANAJI-GOA. ....Petitioners Versus STATE OF GOA AND 6 ORS., ....Respondents MS. GAURI D.S. BHONSULE, Coram:- A.M.KHANWILKAR & P. V. HARDAS, JJ. Date:- 17th December, 2003 P.C.: Heard both sides. The limited relief
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 638 OF 2003
SHRI BHARAT TANDEL, PANAJI-GOA.
Versus
....Petitioners
STATE OF GOA AND 6 ORS.,
....Respondents
MS. GAURI D.S. BHONSULE,
-Coram:A.M.KHANWILKAR &P. V. HARDAS, JJ.-Date:17th December, 2003
P.C.:
Heard both sides. The limited reliefclaimed in this Writ Petition is toquash the process of selection ofrespondents 4 to 7 for the post ofSub-Officer pursuant to the Departmentalexamination. Two briefaffidavits-in-reply in Writ PetitionNos. 637 and 638 of 2003 respectivelyhave been filed on behalf of respondentno. 2 by one Dr. P.K.John, Director ofFire and Emergency Services. Theaffidavit clearly records thatrespondents 3 to 7 have been selectedfor departmental upgrading skills andnot to the posts of Sub-Oficers as isclaimed in the Writ Petitions. Thus, itis not necessary for us to go into anyother question but, to only observe thatthe apprehension expressed by the petitioner that respondents 3 to 7 havebeen selected for the post of Sub-Officer is misplaced.
2. There is another prayer claimed inthis Writ Petition for setting aside theCircular, dated 3rd October 2003, atPage 44. Insofar as this Circular isconcerned, it is placed on record onaffidavit that it is only a proposalhaving no efficacy or would not createany right in favour of any employee. Inthat view of the matter no adjudicationis warranted even on this relief.3. In this petition Mr. Kantakcontends that this petitioner wasmisled in view of the Memorandum, dated14th March 2003, which provides that thecandidates shall have to undergo thecourse privately at their own cost afterobtaining necessary leave from thedepartment, as admissible under theRules, and also because it provided thatthe proposal was only for thosecandidates who are interested in careerprospects in Fire Service outside theState. He submits that later on theDirector, Fire and Emergency Services,by letter, dated 5th November 2003, hadrequested the Government to provide forthe expenses to be incurred for the saidtraining in respect of candidatesparticipating in the selection process.He submits that, in view of the thenMemorandum, the petitioner was misled and did not participate in the trainingprogramme. We see no reason to acceptthis grievance made before us, inasmuchas the said proposal is in respect ofupgrading skills and not fordepartmental promotion or test.The factthat the Government was spending for thetraining of the participants although itwas initially represented that thecandidates will have to undergo trainingat their own costs, cannot be the basisfor quashing the selection of thecandidates, which was done under theCircular, dated 14th March 2003. Asrightly brought to our notice by thelearned Advocate General, if at all thepetitioner is interested in appearingfor the departmental test, he may do soin the ensuing departmental testscheduled for 6th January 2004. Thatoption is still open to the petitioner.4. For the aforesaid reasons, wesee no reason for interference in writjurisdiciton.
A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.P. V. HARDAS, J.